STEUBENVILLE CONCERN

Early on in this blog I made the argument that the levels of civility and criminality of this nation, when compared to our historical levels, are high and that that unfortunate state of affairs reflects poorly on our civics education efforts. A recent case, while anecdotal, illustrates my concern.

The case I am referring to is the rape case in Steubenville, Ohio. In this case, two local high school football players were charged and convicted of rape. Rape is a heartbreaking and emotional disaster for the victim and the victim's family. Unfortunately, rape cases are too frequent to attract much attention. In terms of both actual numbers and rates of reported cases, the United States ranks very high when compared to other nations.¹ How this compares to our historical levels I don't know, but I would guess that current levels are not lower. Beyond the obvious problems with this crime is getting a handle on how often it occurs since victims are often reluctant to report it. This is due to shame or, since perpetrators too often can be family members or husbands, concern for the resulting animosities such reporting can induce.

But in terms of my concerns in this blog, the facts surrounding the Steubenville case are particularly relevant. Apparently, the guilt of the two boys was secured because they and others, using mobile phones and social media, made this crime so public. And since the two boys were (are) local heroes due to their football prowess, the girl who was victimized by the sex crime was further victimized by being the subject of abuse for “causing” all the problems visiting these young men. News reports seem to indicate that such feelings were amply shared by members of that community. The town has a population of fewer than 20,000. I can only guess that pride in the football team is deeply felt by town members and that the facts surrounding the case are probably causing high degrees of dissonance. But to not be able to see beyond the superficial importance of a local high school team, superficial when compared to the seriousness of the rape, one must question the expressed priorities of many members of this community.

Given the geographic location of the town and the fact that the town is described as economically strapped, I imagine that the town has been hit by the exit of manufacturing in what we call the “rust belt.” Of course, if this be the case, it explains, not excuses, an obsession over a successful local team. The condition adds context to the reaction that community members are expressing over the fate of these two young men. Also adding context is the fact that the young lady who was the victim was highly inebriated and can't remember what happened that night. But such conditions did not seem to affect the judge's decision.

Judge Thomas Lipps expressed concern over the nature of the crime:

I came in early this morning and I closely examined all the evidence and I re-read all the text messages that were admitted in this case. Many of the things that we learned during this trial, that our children were saying and doing, were profane, were ugly, with alcohol consumption shown as a particular danger to our teenage youth … .²

The convicted, Trent Mays, 17, and Ma'lik Richmond, 16, seemed truly sorry for their actions after the verdict was rendered and before the sentencing was announced. So pathetic was their behavior that it elicited sympathy for them. Of course, this reaction caused another counter-reaction which basically cried out for people not to forget who the true victim was – a sixteen year old girl.

All of this is damning. It holds the two young men in an obviously despicable standing. But I and others believe it reflects a serious shortcoming in so many others. And it is this latter aspect of the case which draws my attention. Judge Lipps and, later, the state's attorney general voiced the concern that the case highlights profound shortcomings in how we instill in our young people the perceptions and attitudes regarding sex and basic human dignity. State Attorney General Mike DeWine was so concerned that he announced he will be convening a grand jury to investigate the case to seek out others who might have committed crimes. His decision to call the grand jury seems to be influenced by the social media evidence the trial utilized. In a statement he said,

A grand jury is an investigative tool that is uniquely suited to ensure fairness and to complete this investigation. And this community needs assurance that no stone has been left unturned in our search for the truth … . Rape is not a recreational activity. We, as a society, have an obligation [to] do more to educate our young people about rape. They need to know it is a horrible crime of violence. And it is simply not ok.³

And there lies the civics education angle as well as demands on other parts of the school curriculum.

1See web cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics .

2Red, C. and Thompson, T. (2013). Steubenville rape case: Victims hope one day to forgive Trent May & Ma'Lik Richmond, who were found guilty in rape of 16-year-old by Ohio judge. Daily News, March 17, http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/steubenville-high-school-football-players-found-guilty-rape-16-year-old-judge-article-1.1291087.

3Ibid.

CHOICE OR DUTY

I have, at various times in this blog, mentioned that an earlier view of liberty in our national history was the notion that we should be free to do what we should do and not what we want to do. You might have attributed such a notion to a more religiously anchored popular view. And if you have, you would be mostly right – at least according to my understanding. But apparently there is another basis for such a view. The other contention is that while people have choices in terms of their behavior, they have no choice in terms of their conscience and beliefs.¹

The theory is that you as an individual are exposed to information as you go through life. That information is processed and from it your inner voice, your conscience, draws conclusions as to what is good and what is evil. These are your moral beliefs. There is no intent in the process; it just happens. Your intent enters when you decide to either behave in accordance with that conscience or not. So when the right of religion is considered, the right refers to the duty you feel in terms of the dictates which constitute your conscience.

Madison and Jefferson understood religious liberty as the right to exercise religious duties according to the dictates of conscience, not the right to choose religious beliefs. In fact their argument for religious liberty relies heavily on the assumption that beliefs are not a matter of choice. … In this assumption Jefferson echoed the view of John Locke, who wrote in A Letter concerning Toleration (1689), “it is absurd that things should be enjoined by laws which are not in men's power to perform. And to believe this or that to be true, does not depend upon will.”²

If we have no choices in this realm, we therefore have an inalienable right to our beliefs. Such a view of beliefs and conscience is foreign to our modern ear.

The modern view is that of the natural rights mental construct. Central to the construct is the belief that the individual has the right to determine what values, including moral ones, he/she adopts. This strongly indicates an ability to do what Jefferson, Madison, and Locke believed was impossible. More critically, it undermines the function of beliefs. They, as being beyond choices, reflect more centrally our essential self, our identity. Once one accepts that one has the ability to choose values, beliefs, the content of our conscience, one prescribes a transitory, potentially changeable aspect for oneself – changeable by the whims of events and times. In the eyes of our traditional forefathers, on the other hand, that part of us becomes so much a part of who we are that a conscience is central to our being.

Does all this have a practical angle? Take the case of Thornton v. Caldor, in which a Connecticut law allowed for individuals to select which day of the week they could observe the Lord's Day. What the law did was allow Jews to observe the sabbath on Saturday by allowing them to take the day off from work. The rationale was that people don't choose what day of the week their religion selects as the day of their observance. The Supreme Court struck the law down. In its opinion, it furthered the notion that this whole issue falls under the realm of choices. Some workers are Christians, some are Jews, and some don't believe in any religion. To give workers the right to choose what day they can take off would be to allow them an unreasonable choice to the detriment of their employers. Whereas the more traditional view holds that this matter is the exercise of a duty, Jefferson would view that a Jew didn't choose to be a Jew and didn't choose to value observing the sabbath on Saturday. The choice comes into play when a Jew decides to observe the sabbath or not; whether or not to abide by the duty his/her religion holds sacred. Surely, the law could have been worded better, but the case illustrates the distinction between choice and duty. The inability of the court to settle on one or the other principle has led to contradicting decisions by the courts.

I believe this whole notion is fundamental to our civic expectations of citizens. How do our civics students perceive their role as citizens? Are they having the experiences that enable the development of a sense of duty toward the commonwealth? These are basic questions civics educators need to address.

1Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy's discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. This whole concern is taken from Sandel's book.

2Ibid., p. 65.